The High Court has dismissed a challenge to a law that lets prosecutors appeal a Circuit Court decision dismissing criminal charges, but gives an accused person no equivalent appeal when a dismissal application is refused.
The plaintiff argued that the difference breached constitutional equality and other constitutional protections. His counsel said the appeal right was confined to one side of criminal proceedings and could leave an accused wrongly brought to trial. The plaintiff’s challenge was limited at the hearing to the Constitution; his pleaded European Convention arguments were not pursued.
The proceedings arose after a Circuit Court judge refused the plaintiff’s application to dismiss a charge under section 4E of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. The charge alleged that he had acted to impede the apprehension or prosecution of a person suspected of robbery. The plaintiff argued in the Circuit Court that the evidence did not establish that he had helped impede that person’s apprehension or prosecution. The judge found there was sufficient evidence to put him on trial and rejected the proposed narrow interpretation of the offence.
The plaintiff said he wanted to appeal that ruling but had no right to do so under the legislation. The constitutional proceedings began in February 2009, about three months after the Circuit Court order and two months after a trial date was set.
The State argued that prosecutors and accused people have different roles and need not have identical procedural rights. It submitted that a prosecution appeal can address a legal ruling with consequences for other cases, while an accused person whose dismissal application fails retains other avenues, including raising the point at trial and, if convicted, appealing.
Kearns P. said the differing roles justified the provision. If a charge is dismissed, the prosecution would otherwise have no recourse to the Court of Criminal Appeal, the judgment said. The court also noted that an accused person can pursue the issue through other procedures and that a pre-trial appeal could potentially duplicate an appeal after conviction.
The court concluded that the provision did not necessarily violate the constitutional equality guarantee or otherwise unjustly attack the plaintiff’s rights. It also found that the plaintiff’s trial rights remained intact. The court dismissed his claim; it did not decide the underlying criminal charge or the sufficiency of evidence at any future trial.